Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33815477›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2021

Employees' Views and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Assessment of Voluntary Workplace Genomic Testing.

Kunal Sanghavi, W Gregory Feero, Debra J H Mathews, Anya E R Prince, Lori Lyn Price, Edison T Liu, Kyle B Brothers, J Scott Roberts, Charles Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Health care utilization and behavior changes after workplace genetic testing at a large US health care system.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Racial Differences in Perceptions of Genetic Wellness Programs.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Kunal SanghaviThe Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, United States.
W Gregory FeeroMaine-Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency, Augusta, ME, United States.
Debra J H MathewsBerman Institute of Bioethics, Department of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Anya E R PrinceCollege of Law, University of Iowa College of Law, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Lori Lyn PriceThe Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.
Edison T LiuThe Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, United States.
Kyle B BrothersDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, United States.
J Scott RobertsDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Charles LeeThe Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, United States.
Jackson Laboratory · USJohns Hopkins University · USMaine-Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency · USTufts University · USUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of Louisville · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Pilot Supplement)UL1TR002544 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SELKER, HARRY P. · 2018 to 2022
$50.2M
Genetic Counselors and Workplace Genomic TestingR01HG010679 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI LEE, CHARLES, ROBERTS, SCOTT · 2020 to 2023
$3.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002544NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010679
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Employers have begun to offer voluntary workplace genomic testing (wGT) as part of employee wellness benefit programs, but few empirical studies have examined the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of wGT. To better understand employee perspectives on wGT, employees were surveyed at a large biomedical research institution. Survey respondents were presented with three hypothetical scenarios for accessing health-related genomic testing: via (1) their doctor; (2) their workplace; and 3) a commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing company. Overall, 594 employees (28%) responded to the survey. Respondents indicated a preference for genomic testing in the workplace setting (70%; 95% CI 66-74%), followed by doctor's office (54%; 95% CI 50-58%), and DTC testing (20%; 95% CI 17-24%). Prior to participating in wGT, respondents wanted to know about confidentiality of test results (79%), existence of relevant laws and policies (70%), and privacy protection (64%). Across scenarios, 92% of respondents preferred to view the test results with a genetic counselor. These preliminary results suggest that many employees are interested and even prefer genetic testing in the workplace and would prefer testing with support from genetic health professionals. Confirmation in more diverse employer settings will be needed to generalize such findings.

Indexed as

ELSIemployeesgenetic health professionalsworkplace genomic testingworkplace wellness

Identifiers

PMID33815477
PMCPMC8010177
OpenAlexW3137110298

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.